> > > It sounds like the ideal LinuxCNC setup would be a very dump driver > > (without encoder support) and a stepper/servo with just an exposed > encoder. > > And then have LinuxCNC take care of everything. > > > But, then, you would be running blind, with no actual > position available at the computer. >
Why is that? LinuxCNC would get the data from the stepper/servo encoder of course. It's just that the Driver would not interfere. It would be up to LinuxCNC to compensate based on the measure error. This will work, of course, and is simpler, but you are > trusting the servo drives to ALWAYS have the machine at the > commanded position. The advantage of closing the loop in > the computer is that you can always graph the following > error to determine if the machine is accurately following > the G-code program. > Tracking the error would then also become the task of LinuxCNC. It would not only generate all steps, but also receive all encoder information. It's basically moving the loops from the driver to the host. I guess my question is whether that's the vision of LinuxCNC or not. cheers, Torsten _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
